ELKAY:He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong. He would be an idiot to testify since the biggest problem with his defense is him. Did you look at the website he put up before his lawyer made him take it down? To me that is all I need to know about Zimmerman.

That word; "proven." I don't think that word means what you think it means. If you have a link to the shots of Zimmerman's site that was taken down, post 'em, please. Despite my relatively bear-trapped mentality regarding this case, I'm always ready to look at new or old facts that I may have overlooked.

Well that was another absolutely smashing success for the defense. The combination of Uncle, Surrogate Old Lady Mother and Surrogate Nam Medic Father is a farking KO that the prosecution will struggle getting back up, if at all.

Popcorn Johnny:The defense is slamming the fark out of the prosecution. This isn't even fair.

They have nothing. I've asked this before and nobody has been able to give a good answer: What could the prosecution be doing differently? When you're forced into a probable losing case, you can only work with what little you have.

Witness after witness confirming the voice is Georges'. Prosecutors just had the Mom, hell bent on destruction, and the brother, who said before he was unsure. Martin's dad said before he was not sure. Gee. Martin family lie much?

heili skrimsli:ELKAY: heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed

Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.

He lied in court about his financial situation when determining his bond.

This isn't 1850. His wife is not an extension of him and her lies are not his responsibility.

Women in the United States do not testify as the property of or under the authority of their husbands.

IIRC she used words like "I am not sure". Which, if she wasn't directly involved, is understandable or she wasn't sure if they had $100k or $140k, it is more sloppy questioning than lying.I could be wrong.But regardless, you are correct.

And she was totally a reliable witness. Speaker of the gospel, I tell ya.

Obviously not, but she's the only person to offer a course of events other than Zimmerman.

And that's unfortunate, because I don't like the idea of taking his word for it either.

What bothers me is when people who are quick to say she's a totally unreliable witness use parts of her testimony to back their position. If she's unreliable, she's unreliable and you can't use anything she says.

Thunderpipes:Witness after witness confirming the voice is Georges'. Prosecutors just had the Mom, hell bent on destruction, and the brother, who said before he was unsure. Martin's dad said before he was not sure. Gee. Martin family lie much?

Actually, I believe Martin's dad first said that it was not Martin.Later he changed his story.

Mid_mo_mad_man:HAMMERTOE: Cletus C.: What a load of carp. Zimmerman was "led" by Martin. He was stalking him. That is creepy.

1) Zimmerman was following Martin, making no attempt to be stealthy, also making no attempt to confront him; just observe him until the authorities arrived.

2) Martin knew Zimmerman was following him. Martin chose where to go. Martin chose to lead Zimmerman into the dark back-alley where the confrontation and altercation took place,. rather than let Zimmerman know where he was going. (Where to send the po-po.). Zimmerman followed.

You can't change the facts.

It's very clear Martin wasn't just walking home. A ten minute trip was taking 30+ minutes. That being said he wasn't scared or worried over the " cracker" following him. He wanted to teach him a lesson for dissing him.

Sure, the guy walking home unarmed, whatever the route, was the problem, not the guy with the gun locked and loaded who was following him. We didn't really need him to follow Martin.

The Singing Bush:What bothers me is when people who are quick to say she's a totally unreliable witness use parts of her testimony to back their position. If she's unreliable, she's unreliable and you can't use anything she says.

Where's the requirement that jurors have to believe either all or none of a witness's testimony?

Thunderpipes:Witness after witness confirming the voice is Georges'. Prosecutors just had the Mom, hell bent on destruction, and the brother, who said before he was unsure. Martin's dad said before he was not sure. Gee. Martin family lie much?

Not sure they lied as much as confirmation bias. They probably couldn't identify trayvon because it wasn't him, and once they realize just how important that 9-1-1 call was, they convinced themselves it was in fact their son/brother.

Funny that Zimmermans mom to me came across as the weakest identifier, I may have missed it but other than getting to swear more in a couple hours then most do in a month and use the phrase "double tap" Did the prosecution score any points? Seriously, sometimes I dont understand their strategy if anyone can help me out

Sadly, I still think there is a chance for George to be convicted of something. The case so far, does not even come close to warranting being convicted of so much as jaywalking. Manslaughter is not even in the realm of possibility according to the evidence.

Hope he is cleared of all, and can go full out on offense with massive lawsuits against a whole bunch of people and companies. Nutrisystem would help too.

And she was totally a reliable witness. Speaker of the gospel, I tell ya.

Obviously not, but she's the only person to offer a course of events other than Zimmerman.

And that's unfortunate, because I don't like the idea of taking his word for it either.

What bothers me is when people who are quick to say she's a totally unreliable witness use parts of her testimony to back their position. If she's unreliable, she's unreliable and you can't use anything she says.

True. But her role is to help the state prove their case. And even if unreliable, and untruthful, one of her statements absolutely hurts the side she's there to help. That is important.

That said, I'm not sure she lied. I don't think she issmart enough to intentionally mislead. I think she is just not very bright. and cant tell the difference between what she thinks and what she knows. "I heard wet grass."

Agreed (W#8 was on the phone so of course she couldn't see it) however she did say on the stand that Martin was near his house and that she took that to mean right by it and seeing as the altercation started many houses away one can easily infer that Martin confronted Zimmerman and not the other way around. Plus she said that he said that he was going back to confront that creepy ass cracker. Other than that, sure, she didn't witness the start of the altercation, just heard what Martin was saying in the moments before it.

or actual blows landing or see which one was screaming

This is where you are 99% incorrect. Goods testimony was that he saw a man in a light white or red coat (in other words not Martin who was in a blue coat) being punched MMA Ground and pound style by someone whose back was to him. He also stated that the person who was facing him, (also not Martin) was the one screaming out for help. The only thing that he came short of was saying with 100% certainty was that he saw blows land due to it being dark. When crossed he was clear that because he didn't actually see them that he wasn't going to testify that they did. So the evidence is in 99% compliance with Zimmerman's statement to the police. Note that that 1% does not give reasonable doubt to Martins side but to Zimmerman instead.

Lets also not forget that Good asked Martin to stop and that he was calling 911 while he continued his hitting motions. No other witnesses saw anything else until several seconds to up to a minute after the gunshot where they saw him on top of Martin.

nekom:Popcorn Johnny: The defense is slamming the fark out of the prosecution. This isn't even fair.

They have nothing. I've asked this before and nobody has been able to give a good answer: What could the prosecution be doing differently? When you're forced into a probable losing case, you can only work with what little you have.

I think the situation here is people feel like what happened was wrong but technically it isn't illegal so there's a disconnect between what mob rule wants and what can be delivered. I personally feel that at a fundamental level that Martin's death is the fault of Zimmerman, he set the rube goldberg machine in motion.

heili skrimsli:The Singing Bush: What bothers me is when people who are quick to say she's a totally unreliable witness use parts of her testimony to back their position. If she's unreliable, she's unreliable and you can't use anything she says.

Where's the requirement that jurors have to believe either all or none of a witness's testimony?

Sometimes a witness's testimony is stricken from the record. I'm very surprised that didn't happen in this case.

In any case, if I'm a juror and I suspect that a witness is lying or making up stories, I'm not going to believe anything they say because they're unreliable.

Headso:I think the situation here is people feel like what happened was wrong but technically it isn't illegal so there's a disconnect between what mob rule wants and what can be delivered. I personally feel that at a fundamental level that Martin's death is the fault of Zimmerman, he set the rube goldberg machine in motion.

I definitely agree. It's just not murder and this should have never went to trial. There are plenty of critical moments where either Zimmerman or Martin could have prevented this, but due to ego, pride and poor decision making, it all came together.

I'm sure they would be as accepting if they went to an inner city and they were followed and questioned by a resident.

I don't think the proper response is to punch someone in the face.

Nether do I. Not sure what your point was. You have no evidence that is what happened, except for the words of the person who is trying not to go to prison for murder. I'm pretty sure Aaron Hernandez has a story too. Should we take his word as well?

Cletus C.:Mid_mo_mad_man: HAMMERTOE: Cletus C.: What a load of carp. Zimmerman was "led" by Martin. He was stalking him. That is creepy.

1) Zimmerman was following Martin, making no attempt to be stealthy, also making no attempt to confront him; just observe him until the authorities arrived.

2) Martin knew Zimmerman was following him. Martin chose where to go. Martin chose to lead Zimmerman into the dark back-alley where the confrontation and altercation took place,. rather than let Zimmerman know where he was going. (Where to send the po-po.). Zimmerman followed.

You can't change the facts.

It's very clear Martin wasn't just walking home. A ten minute trip was taking 30+ minutes. That being said he wasn't scared or worried over the " cracker" following him. He wanted to teach him a lesson for dissing him.

Sure, the guy walking home unarmed, whatever the route, was the problem, not the guy with the gun locked and loaded who was following him. We didn't really need him to follow Martin.

Following someone at a distance while watching them is neither aggressive nor crimmianal. Zimmerman did not have a history of racist activity. Martin did. Martin had a chip on his shoulder and was the aggressor.

TenaciousP:It's shocking how unprepared each prosecution witness was. Especially Bao. They spent half an hour with him the day before his testimony. Unfarkingbelievable to do that in any case, but especially if its airing on national TV.

I have to agree. It seems as if the prosecution really went all in on their opening, and kinda left the preparation of witnesses to chance. I've busted up some prosecution witnesses because they were woefully prepared. But it is also true that the prosecution has other cases to deal with, and this isn't likely the only one they had to prepare. And their lack of preparation will likely lead to a bad result for them.

But, Mark O'Mara is one of the talkiest talkers around. And BORING as hell, while doing it. I mean, his motion to dismiss was a rambling mess. I mean, I knew the judge was going to deny it, but if I were her, I would've stopped him during that long, disorganized rambling and said "please, STFU. You aren't making sense and you are repeating the same crap."

Cletus C.:Mid_mo_mad_man: HAMMERTOE: Cletus C.: What a load of carp. Zimmerman was "led" by Martin. He was stalking him. That is creepy.

1) Zimmerman was following Martin, making no attempt to be stealthy, also making no attempt to confront him; just observe him until the authorities arrived.

2) Martin knew Zimmerman was following him. Martin chose where to go. Martin chose to lead Zimmerman into the dark back-alley where the confrontation and altercation took place,. rather than let Zimmerman know where he was going. (Where to send the po-po.). Zimmerman followed.

You can't change the facts.

It's very clear Martin wasn't just walking home. A ten minute trip was taking 30+ minutes. That being said he wasn't scared or worried over the " cracker" following him. He wanted to teach him a lesson for dissing him.

Sure, the guy walking home unarmed, whatever the route, was the problem, not the guy with the gun locked and loaded who was following him. We didn't really need him to follow Martin.

Meh. He called 911. He was keeping track of where Martin was. He did the same thing before so that when the police showed up he can direct him to where the person is. If the gun was "locked" why do you have so much butt hurt?

Cpl.D:The important thing to remember here is that it's apparently legally and morally correct to follow someone and confront them in the dark, get them to hit you by acting in a threatening manner, then shoot them dead.

Cpl.D:The important thing to remember here is that it's apparently legally and morally correct to follow someone and confront them in the dark, get them to hit you by acting in a threatening manner, then shoot them dead.

I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

tenpoundsofcheese:ELKAY: heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed

Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.

He lied in court about his financial situation when determining his bond.

Liar.

His wife made misleading statements.George never lied or said anything.The prosecution said that George had an obligation to tell them which is what they whined about.George never did have that obligation.

Do try to keep up with the facts rather than the lies

I would commend you to the study of the crimes "subornation of Perjury" and "Misprison of a Felony" both of which GZ committed during his bond hearing, which, if he takes the stand will be fair game for the prosecutors to talk about because a witnesses' credibility is always relevant to his testimony

Cpl.D:The important thing to remember here is that it's apparently legally and morally correct to follow someone and confront them in the dark, get them to hit you by acting in a threatening manner, then shoot them dead.

Popcorn Johnny:Cpl.D: The important thing to remember here is that it's apparently legally and morally correct to follow someone and confront them in the dark, get them to hit you by acting in a threatening manner, then shoot them dead.

Nabb1:Yes, but it was warranted here. This judge has been brazenly pro-prosecution from the jump, so Zimmerman's lawyers are just creating a record for appeal if the jury flakes out and convicts because they are afraid of the lynch mob surrounding this whole thing.

Granting this particular defense motion is only warranted when the prosecution does not put on any evidence that the defendant committed a crime. How anyone feels about the quality of that evidence is irrelevant. All judges everywhere are pro-prosecution. We are so jaded to pro-prosecution judges that those with only a slight preference for the state are deemed "defense friendly" and those that somehow manage to be actually neutral are viewed a radically pro-criminal and replaced at the next election.

Magorn:tenpoundsofcheese: ELKAY: heili skrimsli: ChaosStar: ELKAY: He is a liar. He commited perjury and parts of his story of what happened that night have been proven wrong

Citation needed

Pretty hard to commit perjury when you've never actually been under oath.

He lied in court about his financial situation when determining his bond.

Liar.

His wife made misleading statements.George never lied or said anything.The prosecution said that George had an obligation to tell them which is what they whined about.George never did have that obligation.

Do try to keep up with the facts rather than the lies

I would commend you to the study of the crimes "subornation of Perjury" and "Misprison of a Felony" both of which GZ committed during his bond hearing, which, if he takes the stand will be fair game for the prosecutors to talk about because a witnesses' credibility is always relevant to his testimony

I wouldn't bother. The Zimmerman fan club will never admit that Saint Zimmerman ever did anything wrong.

Mr_Fabulous:I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

You're projecting your racism onto us. If the teen attacks, it's his fault he gets shot. Stop making this about race, this is about law.

Mr_Fabulous:I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

Including you?

You are obviously speaking for yourself. That is your issue, don't project it on everyone else.

Mr_Fabulous:I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

Mr_Fabulous:If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

Wrong. If hypothetical "white kid" had beaten the black guy into the concrete, and was shot in self-defense, you'd find pretty much the same people here defending him for it.

The people projecting racism into this case are the ones with the strongest dose of it.

ELKAY:Mr_Fabulous: I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

This

Unlike you two, there are a lot of adults who don't make their decisions based on race but rather facts.

Mr_Fabulous:I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

nekom:Popcorn Johnny: The defense is slamming the fark out of the prosecution. This isn't even fair.

They have nothing. I've asked this before and nobody has been able to give a good answer: What could the prosecution be doing differently? When you're forced into a probable losing case, you can only work with what little you have.

Like I said before, they could have gone with what they knew they could prove. If they'd pressed charges of negligent homicide, this case would have been all but a slam-dunk: the undisputed facts alone are enough to pin Zimmerman into a corner, and with some of the stuff that's being fought out now, they could have nailed him with no trouble.

But the mob demanded a murder charge, and the prosecution caved. They can't prove malice aforethought, and so the charge killed the case. If they hadn't gotten greedy, Zimmerman could have been starting a very long prison sentence by now.